[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Toward Human-Level Artificial Intelligence

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 16:46:21 -0400
Message-id: <535D6C9D.2050201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 4/26/14 1:32 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> KI
>> >For RDF based Linked Data in the burgeoning LOD cloud, its all about
>> >terms. Words are simply used for annotations that provide hints.
>> >The evolution of DBpedia across many different human languages
>> >is a live showcase of all of this in action.
> The DBpedia terms are at the same level of vagueness as Schema.org.    (01)

No they aren't. You can reason using the DBpedia ontology, you can't 
using Schema.org without using some post processing to fix all its 
denotation related ambiguities.    (02)

Schema.org is simply about structured data representation, its goal has 
never been to provide an ontology to which a modicum of semantic 
reasoning would sanely apply. This particular endeavor is all about 
providing an important bridge for Web Masters and Web Developers to tag 
stuff while also contributing enough structure for search engine 
ingestion and indexing.    (03)

I do not agree with your characterization at all re., DBpedia and 
Schema.org. Also note the existence of YAGO [1], UMBEL [2], alongside 
DBpedia's [3] own ontology which provide "context lenses" that can be 
used for varying degrees of reasoning by humans and machines.    (04)

> That level of vagueness is sufficiently flexible for a wide range
> of purposes, such as info retrieval or Jeopardy! answers.    (05)

IBM couldn't have used Schema.org for Watson, in the same way they use 
DBpedia. Not a chance. Ask them if you doubt what I claim.
> But you won't use data from DBpedia to design an airplane or
> prove a theorem in mathematics.    (06)

Is that the yardstick for an ontology that enables human and machine 
based reasoning?    (07)

DBpedia can be used for reasoning while Schema.org cannot be used for 
any such adventure, without post processing en route to any kind of 
reasoning.    (08)

In my reasoning examples [4], I use "owl:equivalentClass" relations as 
part of the critical post-processing step in regards to reasoning using 
FOAF or GoodRelations ontologies.    (09)

[1] http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/yago-naga/yago/ -- YAGO
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMBEL -- UMBEL
[3] http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Ontology -- DBpedia Ontology
[4] http://bit.ly/MyzbAh -- Post about reasoning using Schema.org 
courtesy of the FOAF and GoodRelations ontologies .    (010)

--     (011)

Regards,    (012)

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen    (013)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>